Over the course of the last ten years I have been involved in various and multiple legal proceedings involving financial institutions; sometimes as a claimant, other times as lay representaive or advocate for litigants-in-person; and very occasionally as a defendant.
Thus far, the only defeats I have suffered, in or out of court, have been the result of criminality, corruption and miscarriage of justice.
In 2008, I appeared in the samll claims court, reagrding a dispute which arose from a corporate video my company produced. Based on my witness testimony, the claim against us was struck out by an irrate judge, after we refused to deliver the completed promo because the claimant refused to pay the final installment on the contract, without which there was no legal obligation upon us to deliver the completed video.
Not long afterwards, I successfully discharged fraudulent claims against myself and my wife by HSBC, Capital One, American Express and Tesco, using an administrative tool I devised, which has since become more commonly known as the Conditional Acceptance [or 3 Letter] Process and has reportedly been used by many people to discharge millions of pounds worth of fake debt.
2009 was also the year I began working with Michael O’Deira, who became the first mortgagor to challenge the legal validity of a UK mortgage in county court possession proceedings in August that year. One month later, we started shooting The Great British Mortgage Swindle, a coruscating documentary feature film that lifts the lid on mortgage fraud and the brutal nature of eviction by court order. [Watch this space for news of its forthcoming summer release.]
Despite the eventual theft of his home by criminal bailiffs, upon the order of HHJ Inglis, the well-crafted arguments Michael delivered to the woefully negligent judge have since been proven to be absolutely correct; whilst countless others were [and continue to be] inspired by his actions to challenge the validity of their void mortgages.
In 2010, I had two more notable administrative wins using two more processes of my own creation: the first involving the refusal of my wife and I to register the birth of our first child as a future tax slave of the Crown; the second concerning the cancellation of my person’s registration as a taxpayer, on the moral ground that I would not pay a single penny to fund the criminal operations of a mass-murdering government.
On both occasions, the Crown acquiesced without issuing court proceedings, despite numerous threats that they would.
During that eventful year, I made my first appearance in the high court, where I represented my family’s property trust in a claim of fraud against Bank of Scotland and two illegally appointed LPA Receivers, relying upon the same legal arguments I helped Michael compose the previous year.
Our claim was summarily dismissed by HHJ Walton in October 2010, then by Lloyd LJ in the court of appeal the following February and by HHJ Behrens in an application for Judicial Review in June 2012, at the end of which I declared [without objection]:
A system of justice that does not deliver justice is void ab initio and needs to be struck down.
Since the bank thought we were dead in the maritime water, it finally issued proceedings against my family in the high court; but when the claim came before HHJ Behrens on July 21st 2014, the judge was forced to concede that we had proven that one of the twelve disuputed mortgages was illegal and void, using exactly the same aguments that he had dismised as “totally without merit” two years previously, which resulted in nine of my family’s properties being illegally firesold at an average of 35% of their market value.
Nevertheless, six months after he conceded that the mortgage deed in question was illegal, our historic summary judgment resulted in the afrementioned void charge being cancelled by the Land Registry, since when we have been engaged in various applications to remove the other void charges on exactly the same grounds:
1. The mortgage deed is illegal and void under section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, for failing to comply with section 1 of the LPMPA 1989, on the ground that its was not signed in the presence of an independent witness.
2. The mortgage contract is illegal and void for failing to comply with section 2 of the LPMPA 1989, on the ground that there is no document containing all of the mortgage conditions that is signed by both the mortgagor and the morgagee.
3. Even if there were a valid deed and contract in place, our accounting evidence proves that the amount claimable by the bank, including interest, was recouped in full by no later than October 2013, thereby demonstrating the grossly fraudulent nature of the bank’s claim of entirely fictitious mortgage arrears totalling £2.25M.
Earlier this year, the Land Registry rather contritely accepted that we have now established grounds to have all our AP1 applications to rectify the register granted, without a court order; on the basis that we have independent witness testimony confirming that none of the mortgages were properly witnessed, in breach of section 1(3) of the LPMPA 1989; and because the bank is claiming money it is not owed.
Since we originally made the AP1 applications on identical grounds in February 2013 – more than a year before Behrens ruled that my family was still indebted to the bank – the applications must be granted as of the date they were made, which precludes the Land Registrar from relying upon Behrens’ unfounded declaration that the bank’s claim was and remains a valid one, on the ground that no judgment can be applied retrospectively.
Given that the Land Registry has already conceded that the only obstacle to the cancellation of all the mortgages is Behren’s judgment that the debt claimed is a valid one, the Land Registrar is therefore estopped by the facts from using it as the ground to dismiss our applications.
We are currently awaiting the final decision on the matter, the details of which will be posted on this blog, as soon as the outcome is known.
However, whilst a system rigged to protect the banksters’ racketeering is always capable of manutacturing a result in their favour, the previous experiences alluded to in the foregoing have taught me to recognise omens for a singularly positive outcome, well before it transpires:
1. We have not received a solitary letter from the bank, its solicitors or its receivers since we had the first mortgage removed from the register, even though we have been consistently pursuing a reversal of fortunes, both in and out of court, and despite receiving empty threats of bankruptcy petitions in 2014.
2. Every judge who ruled against us has now retired, whilst the solicitor who ran the bank’s proceedings from the onset of the dispute moved to Australia, after we forced her to admit before Behrens in July 2014 that she had withheld evidence that proved the my parents are not personally liable for the alleged debts of the property trust [the only reason why bankruptcy proceedings were never issued against them].
3. There is no BOS representative left on the legal battlefield who has first-hand knowledge of the facts of the long-runing and complex dispute, which has resulted in no applications being made by the bank or its receivers to oppose our applications.
Somewhat inevitably, only the Land Registrar is capable of preventing every one of the illegal charges being cancelled retrospectively, but there now exists no ground upon which such a dishonest decision can rest; necessarily meaning that our applications can only fail in the event that the Land Registrar conspires to pervert the course of justice, by pretending that Behrens’ judgment can be applied to circumstances which preceded it being handed down, when that is a legal impossibility under English law.
Whichever way the decision goes, one thing is certain: whatever successes I manage to achieve in the realm of the plainly rigged judicial system, the moment any litigant-in-person grants jurisdiction to the courts to settle a civil claim, justice becomes almost impossible to obtain without a potentially costly war of attrition with the system itself, especially when one’s adversary happens to be a financial interest of the House of Rothschild, such as Bank of Scotland.
That being said, it is a long-established maxim that he who leaves the legal battlefield first, loses by default; and we have not faced any representaive of the bank in any legal proceedings since 2015.
In the event I was a betting man, it might well be time to back the 1,000,000-1 rank outsider, to win a race in which he has no adversaries left standing.
The spoils such of a victory will be the fall of all the illegal mortgages and indemnification from the Chief Land Registrar for all the losses incurred by my family, since the first illegal charge was mistakenly registered in August 2003.
Much more significant, however, is the fact that such a decision in our favour would automatically vitiate every previous judgment given against us; and Bank of Scotland v Waugh [2014] will be somewhat begrudgingly recognised by the Land Registry as the guiding precedent for all AP1 applications madeon the same or similar grounds; but only after the illegal parts of Behrens’ infamously contradictory order are set aside.
